Will Jurisdictional Fight Slow Down CISPA's Momentum?

from the one-hopes dept

Thanks to a fair bit of propaganda making the rounds, it feels like CISPA -- the cybersecurity bill that seeks to obliterate privacy protections without explaining how that will increase our security -- is on a bit of a fast track towards approval. However a bit of a stumbling block may have popped up. Congressional Representatives Bennie Thompson and Yvette Clarke -- the ranking members on the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies -- have suddenly realized that all of this is happening without their support. That is, they finally realized that, while this is being handled by the Intelligence Committee, it directly impacts Homeland Security and Cyersecurity (obviously), and so they're suddenly asking why it's not going through their committees.

This is just a basic jurisdictional dispute between various fiefdoms within Congress. They pop up every now and again, and usually get resolved in due time. However, in the short term, it could certainly represent a speed bump that hopefully slows down the pace at which Congress seems to want to rush into approving CISPA.

Reader Comments

Finally

It's about time all the convoluted, boring, background subcommittee BS worked in the favor of the people for once. Doubtful it will do much, but every second you still have some semblance of privacy is a win, I guess.

Re:

Isn't is great when congress cannot do anything? I see several agencies have the smell of a large pork dinner with trimmings. Just think of the increase in appropriations they get for the extra bureaucracy. Bigger slice of the pie, more personnel (political patronage jobs), more control... more power!

Current electronic technology law is so much in its infant stage it goes so far as to suggests, a 100% preposterous, trust in the prosecution. Luckily the defense has something to say about that mess. Few times has this kind of accusation reached a jury so precedence not really set yet.

Note that a lot of computer crime law so far is based on hearsay evidence. Example of hearsay: We did not see you do it but we did see an IP or URL that looked exactly like you. (circumstantial evidence by definition) Surely anyone to deny that has other motives irrelevant to a first person (witness) based judicially reviewed by peer based trial system.

Given their obvious mis-directed allegiances...

Why do we keep voting these dipwads into office? Do they have our best interests at heart? Not bloody likely! They are in the pay of big media and other special interests. It is time we voted for some folks who would take OUR interests to heart...

Re: Finally

They're not working in our interest primarily.

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
-James Madison, Federalist 51

Madison was talking about tension between different branches of government, but the principle is still the same. When one faction in power has the ability to obstruct another faction, it is more likely (not always) that the final action will be more aligned with the rule of law and the will of the people. Single parties (of any sort) have a terrible tendency to steamroll through policies that favor narrow, usually selfish, interests.